DSLRUsers.com

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

Would people recommend this lens?

I can't afford the canon equivilant, in fact, I can't even really afford this baby either, but in time I will (pehaps second hand) but would love some feedback before I definately head there.

Cheers,

Rob

Hi Rob
I have this lens and use it for mostly motor sport and have found it to be very good.
BBJ also has this lens and his results are excellent.
Some people do not like the lens I'm not sure why. The lens should be judged by it's results not by the fact that it is not a Nikon. It does not have VR but is a lot cheaper and those of us with a limited budget still seem to produce acceptable results.

Jeff
.

Buy it, steal it, borrow it - believe me when I say this is a very good lens. You might get a certain admin admonishing me for this recommendation

For the price it's a bloody ripper lens.

got it, love it....

ive shot with the non OS version on my 30d, and also the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.

The sigma does look soft in comparison, and I didnt have as many keepers as with the canon - tended to have more out of focus. It wasnt as sharp as my ef-s 60mm macro either, but it is lighter than the canon and is cheap... I say go for it!

I know what im spending octobers baby bonus on...

J

Hi Rob

I bought one new last year and sold it this year. My comments are as follows:

Picture quality was excellent throughout the range. The 2.8 f stop is a winner. Works great with the D70 both in balance and style.

I ended up getting the VR Nikon version (IS in Canon) because I found that most of my shots were hand held while walking around. Sure you can use a mono or tripod but I dont tend to use these much. The VR is simply better for hand held photos at lower speeds but you need to decide if this is an important factor in your photography. The 1.5 factor makes hand holding more difficult than the older film based 80-200's especially at the 200 end which has equivalent camera shake to a 300mm in film which would often be used with a tripod as standard kit. That's what makes VR appealing to me.

I would suggest that this is an excellent lens without hesitation and the absolute latest version has a kind of macro or close up that can be handy. Its resale value is not as good as Nikon comparatively and this needs to be factored in. (on this note Sigma brings out new models more rapidly than Nikon which is like a planned obsolescence...just a bit irritating eg the 70-200 Sigma was replaced last year with a DG model which has this year been replaced by a DG model with macro...there is something about buying something that does not need to be replaced so quickly)

My only real criticism of the lens is that it has a strange felt like surface that is very easy to scratch . Looks good though. I have no idea what they were doing when they decided to use this surface on such a good lens. It comes with a great case and a great tripod mount. PS Sigma also hasnt worked out how to design a decent lens cap yet ....minor irritation.

I havent really talked about the VR because that was not the purpose of your request. I would only buy a second hand one if it was in mint condition and below $1k otherwise you should buy a new one. I sold mine for below $900 with the 2x converter and mine was only six or seven months old. There are bound to be other impatient sellers around like me .

Good luck.

Peter Mc PS Sorry for the rant but its either this or putting together my son's IKEA furniture. MHD got it right "got it love it" which I would rephrase to "had it, loved it, sold it..."

Rob,

I was the one who bought the lens from Peter. I agree completely with what he and others have said. I have no complaints since I bought this lens. Very happy with it and the quality of photos it yields.

Cheers
Alex